GUIDELINES FOR ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW
I. Charge to the Committee
The Committee for Department and Program Assessment at NJIT is charged with oversight
of assessment of academic programs. The Committee establishes process and policies for the
institutional review of: (1) professional accreditation self-studies and reports, and (2) all
academic programs not included in professional accreditation review processes. The
Committee establishes the program review process for academic programs that do not
participate in prescribed professional accreditation reviews.
The Committee recommends actions to the provost and deans based on accreditation and
program evaluation reports. Actions will be directed toward the improvement of the specific
academic programs under review as well as the quality and efficacy of the overall academic
program of the university. The review process should be used to enhance and inform
strategic planning, program development, and the budget process.
II. The Program Review Process
The program review process is outlined in this document:
A. Procedures to establish committees to review each program
B. The outline and guidelines for the development of the review committee
reports
C. Procedures relative to the presentation and evaluation of reports by the
committee
D. Possible Committee actions on reports
E. The timeline for accomplishment of tasks in the process are established.
III. Criteria for Evaluation Excellence
Evaluation of programs is based on criteria associated with excellence in university academic
programs and these criteria are consistent with standards of excellence established by Middle
States, ABET, NAAB, AASCB and other educational accreditors. In general, program
reports need to address these standards, and assessment by the Committee needs to focus on
establishing program efficacy, strengths and weaknesses based on these criteria. General
criteria include, but are not confined to:
1. The strength of the relationship of the program to the mission of the university
and its centrality to the university’s academic offerings and academic strategic
plan. This encompasses the contribution that the program makes to the university
academic life and reputation.
2. The level of preparation of students for appropriate performance in their chosen
fields, including subsequent course work and careers.
3. The strength of the relationship between enrollments, retention and graduation
rates, demonstrating the viability of the program in attracting, retaining and
graduating students into the market place or to higher levels of academic
preparation.
4. The extent to which students are meeting learning goals and objectives.
5. The quality of instruction.
6. The amount and quality of research conducted by faculty and opportunities for
students to participate in research.
IV. Process Guidelines
The following describes the schedule of activities for the review of programs.
1. Initiate Process (January)
The review process is initiated by the provost, who chairs the Review Committee for
Department and Program Assessment, from the roster of programs scheduled for review in
the coming academic year. The review committees are formed for designated programs. The
chair of the program review committee is selected by the dean of the school in which the
program resides. The dean and program review committee chair select internal program
review committee members. Committee members may include:
•
•
•
Faculty representatives.
The Review Committee for Department and Program Assessment representatives.
Administration and staff as appropriate.
The dean of the school and the program review committee chair are members on an exofficio basis. The committee may want to consider including students and/or alumni. The
NJIT’s Office of Institutional Research and Planning provides technical assistance to the
program review committee.
2. Form and Orient Review Committee (January/February)
Members of the Review Committee for Department and Program Assessment orient program
review committees. The orientation consists of a review of guidelines, a review of
procedures, and an overview of resources available to assist the program review committee.
The orientation also includes review of the charge to the committee.
3. Report and Recommendations Submitted to Dean (October)
All sections of the report need to be drafted 8-10 months after formation of the program
review committee. The program reviews and recommendations are reported to the dean of
the school in which the program resides. The dean's comments on the program review and
recommendations to the internal program review committee are attached to the report.
4. The final draft of the self-study report needs to be submitted to all members of the
Department and Program Review Committee at least two weeks prior to presentation and
discussion of the program.
2
5. Dean Reports to the Review Committee for Department and Program Assessment
(November/December)
The dean presents the report, recommendations and comments to the Review Committee for
Department and Program Assessment. The Committee analyzes the report for its sufficiency
in addressing required report sections.
6. The summary of Committee comments, recommendations and recommended actions is
added to the report and returned to the review committee. Copies of each completed report
are filed in the Office of the Provost and (2) in the Office of Institutional Research and
Planning.
V. Charge to the Review Committees
A. Review all prior documents and reports relating to the development, status, and
review of the program.
B. Provide needed program descriptions.
C. Identify data needed to document findings and retrieve or collect data from
appropriate institutional sources.
D. Analyze data: compare measurable program objectives defined by the program
approval document to the outcomes.
E. Interpret data: explain what the results mean in the context of the given program.
F. Develop recommendations which are based on the analysis and interpretation of
findings.
G. Prepare a document, not to exceed 50 double-spaced pages. Appendixes may be
added.
H. Submit the document for the review process described above.
VI. Program Review Guidelines
The following outlined sections must be addressed in the program review report. The table
below also gives suggestions for data and information that may be useful in a full discussion
of sections of the report:
Outline
A. Background
1. Specify program title(s): all degrees awarded for the program under review,
including options, as specified in the catalog
2. Give a brief history of the program
3. Program mode: (describe the proportion of courses given on/off campus, day,
evening, distance education, etc.)
B. Previous Deficiencies and Actions to Correct (if any have identified during the previous
reviews).
3
C. Students
1. Enrollment trends (both majors and credit hours of instructional service to
other programs at the university
2. Ethnic and gender diversity
3. Full and part-time enrollment trends
4. Student level of preparation identified by the course grades, instructor exams,
standardized exams, capstone courses performance, senior theses, co-op
experience, internships, and other relevant outcomes
5. Retention and graduation rates
6. Student advisement procedures
7. Research opportunities
8. Program student activities outside classroom activities and student/faculty
contacts (other than classroom)
D. Program Outcomes Assessment Practices and Results
1. Summarize program educational goals and outcomes
2. Describe the processes used to assure that graduates have achieved the program
outcomes and summarize findings
3. Describe student success in terms of subsequent employment or further academic
study
4. Describe how the assessment results are implemented to improve the program
E. Faculty
1. Describe the faculty with regard to size, tenure/non- tenure, full-time, part-time, rank
and credentials of the faculty
2. Analyze ethnic and gender diversity
3. Describe the quality of instruction
4. Describe faculty instructional development initiatives and faculty professional
development
F. Facilities
1. Describe classrooms, laboratories, equipment and infrastructure and their adequacy to
the program goals
2. Identify the opportunities students have to learn the use of modern technology tools
3. Describe a plan and sufficiency of resources to acquire, maintain, and operate
facilities and equipment
G. Institutional Support
1. Describe the program’s budget, financial resources, and leadership necessary to
achieve program’s objectives
2. Describe the adequacy of faculty professional development
3. Discuss the adequacy of support personnel and institutional services
4
H. Recommendations
Summarize the recommendations of the review committee. All recommendations must be
based on analysis of the data and information collected for the study, and must be drawn
from the implications of these analyses.
Editorial notes: The cover of the document should include the program name as well as the
names of the members of the program review committee. The document must not exceed 50
pages of text, double spaced, although appendixes are permitted. The document should be
prepared to allow for electronic distribution.
CURRENT SCHEDULE OF PROGRAMS FOR INTERNAL REVIEW
2004-5
Program Review
Chairperson
NCE Program
M.S. & PhD in Biomedical Engineering
M.S. & PhD in Chemical Engineering
M.S. in & PhD Civil Engineering
M.S. in & PhD Environmental Engineering
M.S. in Computer Engineering
M.S. & PhD in Electrical Engineering
M.S. in Telecommunications
M.S. in Internet Engineering
M.S. in Engineering Management
M.S. in & PhD Industrial Engineering
M.S. in Manufacturing Engineering
M.S. & PhD in Transportation
M.S. & PhD in Mechanical Engineering
Bill Hunter
Basil Baltzis
John Schuring
Atam Dhawan
Athanassios Bladikas
Nadine Aubry
CSLA Program
M.S. in Chemistry
Joseph W. Bozzelli
5